Ella Wheeler Wilcox

I like Wilcox because, like I mentioned in that last post, her poetry is easily accessible. I've had moments that may have been a Gethsemane of sorts for me. But sometimes I'm afraid that I have a lot more of Gethsemane to look forward to. Whatever comes, I'll survive.

Gethsemane

In golden youth when seems the earth
A Summer-land of singing mirth,
When souls are glad and hearts are light,
And not a shadow lurks in sight,
We do not know it, but there lies
Somewhere veiled under evening skies
A garden which we all must see -
The garden of Gethsemane.

With joyous steps we go our ways,
Love lends a halo to our days;
Light sorrows sail like clouds afar,
We laugh and say how strong we are.
We hurry on; and hurrying, go
Close to the border-land of woe,
That waits for you, and waits for me -
For ever waits Gethsemane.

Down shadowy lanes, across strange streams,
Bridged over by our broken dreams;
Behind the misty caps of years,
Beyond the great salt fount of tears,
The garden lies. Strive as you may,
You cannot miss it in your way.
All paths that have been, or shall be,
Pass somewhere through Gethsemane.

All those who journey, soon or late,
Must pass within the garden's gate;
Must kneel alone in darkness there,
And battle with some fierce despair.
God pity those who cannot say,
Not mine but thine, who only pray,
Let this cup pass, and cannot see
The purpose in Gethsemane.

There are certain aspects of SSA that have changed my life in ways that I wasn't expecting. Some of these accommodations are certainly such that I would not have otherwise chosen them. But I accept them now out of necessity... and it turns out I'm okay with that.

Necessity

Necessity, whom long I deemed my foe,
Thou cold, unsmiling, and hard-visaged dame,
Now I no longer see thy face, I know
Thou wert my friend beyond reproach or blame.

My best achievements and the fairest flights
Of my winged fancy were inspired by thee;
Thy stern voice stirred me to the mountain heights;
Thy importunings bade me do and be.

But for thy breath, the spark of living fire
Within me might have smouldered out at length;
But for thy lash which would not let me tire,
I never would have measured my own strength.

But for thine ofttimes merciless control
Upon my life, that nerved me past despair,
I never should have dug deep in my soul
And found the mine of treasures hidden there.

And though we walk divided pathways now,
And I no more may see thee, to the end,
I weave this little chaplet for thy brow,
That other hearts may know, and hail thee friend.

Sonnet

O precious evenings! all too swiftly sped!
Leaving us heirs to amplest heritages
Of all the best thoughts of the greatest sages,
And giving tongues unto the silent dead!
How our hearts glowed and trembled as she read,
Interpreting by tones the wondrous pages
Of the great poet who foreruns the ages,
Anticipating all that shall be said!
O happy Reader! having for thy text
The magic book, whose Sibylline leaves have caught
The rarest essence of all human thought!
O happy Poet! by no critic vext!
How must thy listening spirit now rejoice
To be interpreted by such a voice!

-Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

I don't think a blog is much of a "voice" for poetry per se, but poetry within the context of people's lives takes on a special voice in my view. I've never been a huge fan of poetry, but I do find that some poems are amazingly powerful in their simplicity. If they teach me something about myself, all the better. I like the ones that aren't so pretentious--that are accessible. It's the really weird poetry that turns me off, so I just avoid it usually. But I don't mind reaching out once in a while to try something new.

If, of thy mortal goods, thou art bereft,
And from thy slender store two loaves alone to thee are left,
Sell one and from the dole,
Buy Hyacinths to feed the soul

-Muslihuddin Sadi

Poetry is an online hyacinth... and no loaf selling is necessary.

A beautiful day

After a hefty amount of snow, a near death experience on the freeway, and a run of sub-zero temperatures... today is gorgeous.

It reminds me that life cycles. Things don't stay the same for very long. I'd like my moody oscillations to trend up overall, though, and luckily, I think I'm being successful in that. I've still had my requisite ups and downs for the last several weeks and months, but overall there's a placid background of contentment... something I never really had a few years back.

It's likely that I'll hit some pretty low lows in the not so distant future. That's just life's way. So, I try to remind myself to be prepared for when they come. I try to ground myself with a constant awareness of what is most important to me in my life and where I want to find myself and my family next year, in five years, in thirty years...

And thirty years from now it's unlikely I'll remember this day at all. But it will have made me (in part) into whatever I will have become. And for that I'm very grateful for the beauty and the serenity of today.

Gilmore Gripe

I can't stand Gilmore Girls this season. Or last season, really.

I think my problem is just that the characters and plot have become constrained for the purpose of extending the romantic tension. Luke and Loralei were so close to getting married, and everyone was so happy that she could finally have a bit of happiness from life, and so the writers had to sit down and come up with a way to destroy it all so that they could keep the show alive and kicking for a few more seasons.

Not having any actual good ideas, they went with the spiral of stupidity and unbelievable plot twists we've seen for the last couple seasons.

The thing about last night's show that was believable but still ridiculous and sad was when Loralei and Christopher were talking about their marriage and decided it just wasn't going to work out. They had a problem--and in my opinion it was a completely superficial and incidental problem--and they were incapable of trusting one another and moving on. They had to second guess each other until they made the rift between themselves transform from imagined to real. They chose to walk away.

This makes me want to swear a little bit.

I know that the show is designed for Loralei and Luke to be the favored couple. But inconveniently, that didn't work out and Loralei married Christopher. That should be the end. Marriage is a promise. And it was based on real love, in my opinion. Loralei and Christopher have loved each other for decades. And then when something makes it complicated, Loralei looks for advice from Suki (naturally, as best friends) but doesn't even bother to consider counseling! How can she not read my blog and know that everyone should get relationship counseling!

It's just so ridiculous. Can real people be so stupid? Wait, don't answer that.

So, here's a note of gratitude to a woman who has weathered much worse, is way more clever than Loralei, and always manages to rest comfortably in our permanent mutual commitment to one another. Oh, and she's hotter than Loralei too.

I love ya, babe. Have a Happy Valentine's Day.

My valentine

What does a guy do for the most amazing woman in the world for Valentine's Day? Please keep in mind that the guy is dirt poor... and busy... and not terribly creative about such things.

I've seen all the crap people buy, and that's just not our style. But I would like to do something special. I might even pony up some cash in a completely unprecedented show of spendthrift indulgence and get a really nice piece of jewelry.

But even then, it would be nice to give it to her in a creative way. And some of the readers here are particularly creative, so I'm petitioning for your advice (or stories of things you've been impressed with before).

Rational faith 5: Wrap up

While I was writing one of my previous posts, a resident I work with asked me what I was doing. I explained that I write a blog and that I was currently writing about science and religion. He recommended a recent article in Time magazine, so I had a look.

The article includes an interview with Francis Collins, the guy who headed the human genome project. Dr. Collins is actually sort of a hero of mine. I had the chance to meet him at the NIH a while back during a meeting for physician scientists. He was so approachable and happy, I just wish I had the opportunity to be his friend on an ongoing basis.

Anyway, I was happy to see him featured in an article in Time and taking a position similar to mine from the last several posts. Here are a few quotes from the article:

TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

COLLINS: Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.

...

DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."

...

DAWKINS: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?

COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.

Collins acknowledges what I believe as well: science is inadequate for answering questions about God. He shows that a brilliant scientist can believe in God and science simultaneously. And Dawkins demonstrates the disdain of certain non-believers who seem to not only disagree with the idea of religion, but resent it. I'll stop short of writing an extended review of his comments (and tone) in the article.

I did have a few more thoughts I wanted to put in this series, but I'm sick of it now. Some other time I'll post those other thoughts on their own. I may not have persuaded anybody that I'm not brainwashed, but it was a great exercise to really look inside myself and realize why I believe as firmly as I do in the gospel even while aware of so-called anti-Mormon points of view. I'm very happy with my current level of testimony and understanding and look forward to a life of learning and growing.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus

Rational faith 4: Creative calculus

In trying to understand how to value both spiritual and scientific information, I've found the following analogy helpful.

I think everyone in the world is constantly engaged in assessing what is likely to be true, and the assessment is the sum of calculations our mind is constantly performing in the background. It's as if reality is a mathematical function of endless complexity that includes erratic twists and turns when graphed on a Cartesian plane. From the moment we're born, as humans, we gather bits and pieces of information and incorporate them as variables into our own equation that approximates that graph of real reality. The more successfully we are able to match our conception of reality with actual reality, the more empowered we become.

Early on we realize that our variables must be weighted with a relevant coefficient to achieve the best results. Certain pieces of information are deemed reliable and others are judged to be anomalous and are consequently given a low coefficient. We learn to be alternately skeptical and trusting in certain circumstances. We solve parts of the overall equation all the time, compartmentalizing and simplifying the data we have to keep in mind on an ongoing basis. Occasionally we find a clever way to resolve a set of variables that others may miss. It's natural and inevitable that variables drop out over time, either by being incorporated into some larger statement, or from being relegated to the distant past of forgotten experience.

We also have the opportunity to get huge swaths of the equation second-hand from parents and teachers. We can plug this data into our equation to see if it works, or add the information piece by piece based on our own experiences.

There is an inevitable challenge in managing this equation. Some previously resolved portion of the formula eventually ends up contradicting another. There's a division by zero, of sorts. Sometimes when this happens, you can go back and check the math, but that can be entirely impractical for sections of the formula that have incorporated hundreds of thousands of variables over years.

So, we add coefficients. We fudge. And I think we all do this out of necessity. We choose to devalue certain pieces of information to a fraction of their original value because they come into direct conflict with other more powerfully verified portions of the formula. The effort is always to judge rationally which terms carry more collective weight, which have more collective evidence. In really troubling instances, spot checks help sort out the facts. But often there are is no apparent way out of the mess despite that plenty in the peanut gallery claim a certain way to be the only legitimate one--and they frequently don't agree with each other.

The art of life, in my opinion, is learning how to best manage the whole enterprise. We all do it whether we realize it or not--it's just part of life as a biological creature. We assign coefficients to the evidence that presents itself in the cleverest way possible. Ideally we learn how to efficiently secure solved portions of the equation with the highest relevance and value. Life is about finding balance.

Some get carried away inflating the value of some information while zeroing out others. A piece of information zeroed out for its incompatibility with some other weighty established phrase may seem inconsequential alone, but if enough data is neglected serially over a long period of time, the person has managed to deceive himself thoroughly. It is this self-deception that many attribute to people of faith.

Another self-deception happens when new information is given higher credibility than old merely because of it's immediacy on the mind. Years of experience corroborated with a steady stream of consistent information is thrown away in an instant because of some plausible new bit at odds. Certain significant memories of a more ethereal character are more likely to be forgotten. They have to be vigilantly kept in the fore-front to be kept at all.

On the other hand, some people try admirably to keep all the data unmodified, accepting only raw information of the most demonstrable nature as legitimate. This approach is wonderfully successful for filling in certain parts of the graph, but is too inefficient to cover much and largely neglects certain key portions of the graph.

Being fully aware of the aforementioned limitations and pitfalls, I sit perched with my number two pencil and my sheet of graph paper wondering how best to tackle the variables I've assembled. I decide to compartmentalize where possible, and address the data by prioritizing by urgency, importance, and purpose. The process perpetuates itself as solved portions of the equation cast new light on previously obscure variables. In this way I'm persuaded by preliminary results that hope, when used judiciously, can sometimes be a legitimate coefficient. I'm persuaded that observance of certain rituals and covenants has surprising power, while others are silly or harmful. I'm persuaded that Occam's razor isn't always the final word.

The fact that I believe in free will leads me to believe that how I manage the effort will be an expression of who I am most fundamentally. Plunging the depth and breadth, traversing the whole while scooping up critical minutia here and there--it's all an art, a rewarding enterprise, and an expression of my soul.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up

Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory

The conflict between science and religion is a cliché. It's there demanding to be addressed by anyone who values them both but notes the inconsistencies. Ezra Taft Benson said:

Religion and science have sometimes been in apparent conflict. Yet, the conflict can only be apparent, not real, for science seeks truth, and true religion is truth. There can never be conflict between true religion and scientific fact. That they have occupied different fields of truth is a mere detail. True religion accepts and embraces all truth; science is slowly expanding her arms and reaching into the invisible domain, in search of truth. The two are meeting daily; science as a child; true religion as the mother. Truth is truth, whether labeled science or religion. "Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24). Truth is always consistent. It can never be in conflict with itself.

This is a quote explaining an idea I've long been fond of. It jives with my sense that there's Truth out there with a capital T, objective reality plugging along despite our inability to pin it all down. I love the idea that ultimately there are answers for everything... things work. Proving existence of objective reality is burdensome (and somewhat ridiculous), so I just start with confidence in Benson's notion here.

However, the problem with interpreting Benson's quote is that it may tempt us to try to reconcile faith and religion now, as if we have the means to do so. This effort has been made in the past with some unfortunate outcomes. Churches have dictated what science is allowed to do, and dictated "truths" about the universe based on a presumptive reading of scripture. I'm of the opinion (and I think history supports me on this) that that's a bad way to go about things. I'm a resolute opponent of Intelligent Design masquerading as science, for example.

I see science and spirituality as two separate but effective ways of learning. They teach us about different things and we will be wise to use them only as directed. Science works terrifically for advancing temporal causes, but using it for spiritual pursuits is something like building a tower of Babel or seeking signs. That's not to say that reason isn't central, because I think it is inseparable from a genuine testimony, but the effort to prove religious principles can be antithetical to portions of the plan of salvation.

Similarly, intuition and unfounded confidence have to be checked in science. There's room for creativity and fresh ideas, but when it comes down to testing a hypothesis, aberrancies are wrought out and destroyed, precision is pursued with alacrity, and confounders are battled with vigilance. Holding on to any biases not supported by verifiable data is counter-productive. And, as I mentioned before, using doctrines or religious tenets anywhere in the scientific process is a bad idea.

Despite their differences, the effectiveness of both science and spirituality for their respective purposes is undeniable in my mind. As my previous two posts attest, they both work really well for me. It's just the inappropriate inter-mingling of the two methods that causes problems. Just as one should not combine the theory of relativity and quantum physics, the two systems of thought can't be mixed without coming up with some absurdities.

Is there a way to use both together to build a unified world view? Where's the grand unifying theory of science and religion? I'm working on my own version, but it has its problems. I do believe that some such combined world view is possible without resorting to being irrational. Perhaps it won't be provable (just as string theory attempts to reconcile relativity and quantum physics but can't be proved without a particle accelerator the size of a gallaxy) but that lack of proof won't make it automatically irrational.

Next time: my effort at a rational and faith-accommodating world view.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up

Rational faith 2: Spirituality

Despite the undeniable utility of scientific inquiry, it is largely inadequate to answer spiritual questions-questions that are arguably the most important ones we face. While science can tell me how best to reach a certain objective or what to expect from the natural world, it can't transcend the natural world to provide answers about meaning and purpose.

This observation is no indictment of science. It's just how things are. If we trace back natural laws to moments after the Big Bang, we find that they suddenly fail to hold. Laws we typically accept as fact are broken, it seems. We can no longer use our conventional tools to answer important questions. What was before the big bang? What is smaller than a quark (or insert the latest vogue subatomic particle)? What is past the edge of the universe? ... all seem out of reach. Even granting the theoretical ability to answer those specific questions, there will ALWAYS be something out of provable reach, as Gödel has gone ahead and shown. Let me say it again: on the most fundamental level, there will always be something just out of the reach of observation, measurement, and even logic.

One may choose to be satisfied with these limitations, but I'm prone to believe that there is a fully spiritual aspect to my humanity, and that addressing it may transcend those limitations. Maybe it just requires a different approach. I hunger for meaning and spiritual knowledge. How I find that spiritual information is still subject to rational processes but is not subject to all the assumptions of science (and therefore may not be subject to all its limitations).

Many are quick to point to the widely disparate conclusions drawn by those pursuing spirituality. They conclude that none of those spiritual views have any merit over the others. This is invalid. I believe that some spiritual conclusions are right, and some are wrong. Some are incomplete or inferior. And some are supernal and real. Faulting spirituality for its non-demonstrable nature shows a misunderstanding of the rules of the game, and denying that reason plays a role is equally incorrect. We ought to have respect for differing views without accepting them all as having equal merit. Some spiritual views are irrational, yes. But calling all spirituality irrational is a fallacy of generalization.

There are admittedly many perils inherent in any subjective process, but those perils can take you in opposite directions. I've met folks who interpret Mary's face on a piece of toasted cheese to be a sign from God, and although I can't rule that out, I agree with those who note such random "signs" will happen with certain regularity over time based on probability alone. On the other hand, categorically dismissing spirituality as the result of misinterpretation of coincidence in all cases is unjustified. A rational person will recognize that the existence of such misinterpretation and coincidence does not rule out the discovery of genuine spiritual information in some cases. That is, there are both real and mistaken spiritual experiences, and one's discovery of the existence of the latter shouldn't lead one to fallaciously generalize all spiritual experiences by all people to that group.

The notion that an all-powerful Father in Heaven has created this universe and our souls for purposes that can only be partially represented to our mortal minds as "joy" and "exaltation" establishes a framework from which to understand our spiritual world. The scenario is fleshed out quite reasonably and rationally with an explanation that God's interactions with man are limited and indirect because those circumstances are necessary for development of a righteous will and maturation of a divine nature. Further, the idea that God provides information through a nuanced combination of personal revelation and authoritative messengers makes a lot of sense.

Spiritual inquiry necessarily uses reason and logic, but expands acceptable working data past what is reproducible and demonstrable. Clinical trials and retrospective analysis are key for discovering and believing what can't be overtly proven (and must therefore be based on faith). But the data turned up by such analysis can only be personally appreciated, and may therefore get a lot of scorn from those who have had a vastly different personal spiritual experience and have no context to appreciate an individual's specifics.

Spiritual truths are most immediately meaningful for what they tell us about living life abundantly, finding joy, and being filled with other divine attributes like love. Spiritual inquiry, because of its subjective nature, is often condemned for its non-reproducibility. But this non-reproducibility is expected within the context of a personal spiritual journey in which transcendental truths are available on a need-to-know-when-you're-ready basis. So, ultimately, it comes down to each individual and his or her own experience. And my experience tells me that spiritual inquiry has been extremely successful in my life in providing meaning and purpose. It has been extremely successful in making the people I admire into the people that they are. It has been extremely successful in predicting what will make me happy and help me flourish. Basically, I like spiritual inquiry because it works really well.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up

Rational faith 1: Science

Those who practiced medicine many decades ago eventually realized that anecdotal evidence just isn’t as helpful as repeatable experiments that give consistent results. Where herb poultices and leeches had occasionally cured certain maladies (and inadvertently caused others), understanding pathophysiology helped invent and direct more reliable cures. We’ve moved toward understanding things and proving things rather than occasionally lucky stabs in the dark. Now, it seems, you can’t even apply common sense to medical problems without conducting multi-phase clinical trials to prove what everyone thought was right from the beginning. This is because evidence-based medicine has been extremely effective in treating disease, so it’s thankfully here to stay.

Science is the system of determining facts about the world through an objective process of measurement. At least, that’s how I think of it. The measurements have to be similar when done by different people at different times, and the facts apply only to conditions unique to the experiment. Testing hypotheses in this way has proven to be a hugely successful way of generating information.

Add on a little math and/or logic, and you can extrapolate facts from other facts. If this experiment shows us this, and this experiment shows us this, we can conclude that this third experiment would result in this, even though actually conducting such an experiment may be impossible. Through rational thought, we move forward.

And thus we have the Internet, antibiotics, space shuttles, etc. Go team.

Unfortunately, the progress from simple direct experiments like Mendel’s pea plants to sophisticated nano-scaled machines means that most of us are just going to have to accept most of science on faith. We can’t know it all for ourselves because the existing body of knowledge is too broad and too deep. The minutia of technology and the esoteric nature of sub-specialized fields of expertise mean that I’m obliged to sit here and happily type my blog without giving a second thought to how it all works. From the binary code of the software to the physics of electricity to the economics of free web-based services, I have no choice but to trust that people have this stuff figured out, and my trust is rewarded with results.

Unfortunately, faith in science can be misplaced. We resident doctors hash out the specific details of scientific papers all the time as a part of our training. In “Journal Clubs” we dissect journal articles to find flaws in their methodology, their study design, and the conclusions they claim to have reached. Contrast this with the press, who often not only fail to question the actual plausibility of a study’s findings but often overstate the conclusion and give the public a completely false impression that some ridiculous idea has been “proven by scientists.”

There are occasional mistakes that take scientists down a false path for a long time before realizing the error. Unfortunately, some errors are deliberately propagated by those who are trying to sell something, both material and ideological. Either way, don’t ever assume that something claimed on “scientific” grounds is a sure thing. Your trust is probably well-placed, but not necessarily.

The good news is that poor science, even the most esoteric kind, is likely to be eventually uncovered. But it’s uncovered by the folks who take the time to really understand the data, not by the peanut gallery who scoff at the unfamiliar. The scoffing is just noise.

My brain has gone all over the place now, and you just have to stay tuned to see why I even wrote this post. There’s no denying that a systematic, ordered approach to demonstrating what we don’t yet know has taken us amazing places--even in my life time. I like science, logic, and rationality, because they work really well.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up

Book club, Feb

I like movies for book club. They are short and sweet. :-)

There are several books I'm still interested in reading that lost previous months' club polls, but it's probably better to start from a clean slate. Anyone want to nominate a book?

I'm still interested in non-fiction titles. There are books by Byrd and Schow that I've mentioned wanting to read some time. There are books by general authorities that I think would be faith building and fun to read. There are always your Pulitzer prize books that are just plain hearty reading. We could read poetry...

I'm open for anything.

Rules

It's going to be a rehash, probably. I've already mused about R rated movies and the pros and cons of following strict guidelines vs. the "spirit of the law". But watching States of Grace brought the subject back to mind again.

A powerful line in the movie was when Elder Farrell was reluctant to take Louis into their apartment and Elder Lozano says, "Do you want to follow the rules or follow the commandments?" Here's a place where there seems to be no room for argument. Disregarding the rules seems to be unavoidable to really be a follower of Christ.

Later in the film, after Elder Farrell had sex, I couldn't help but imagine to myself that the course of events that led to him being enamored with Holly all started because they disregarded the rules. Had they not started having roof-top family dinners and hanging out with Louis and Holly (Elder Lozano mainly talking with Louis and Elder Farrell left essentially alone for romantic heart-to-hearts with Holly), it probably wouldn't have happened.

I can already imagine some consternation... "What do you want them to do, L? Leave Louis in the street to freeze to death? Oh, yeah, murder's a lot better than losing your chastity!" But, my point is precisely that they could have kept the rules and still rescued Louis. Rationalizing things here and there leaves us open to embracing false dilemmas when we're not paying attention. They could have had him in the house that night, then found an alternative arrangement when he was better... or gotten permission... or called an ambulance... or whatever.

Ought one to follow or be self-sufficient in winging it? Are there ever any really easy answers?

Conditions of love

The issue of the give and take of love gets a pretty good treatment in States of Grace. Elder Farrell's dad says he'd rather his son come home in a coffin than come home dishonored. And, admirably, Dutcher doesn't flake out with a pat reconciliation at the end--the dad stays distant and Elder Farrell stays tormented to an extent. What kind of love is that? What kind of love wants the best for a person, thus sets up expectations of behavior, and failing those expectations withdraws completely?

Holly's parents struggle with the same thing. They love their daughter, it seems, enough to send her to L.A. first class with all their support and hope for the best as an actress. But when things go south and she makes some poor decisions out of desperation, they withdraw not only their approval, but even the most basic of personal contact. Do they see that in some strange way as being loving to their daughter?

I can understand the importance of emphasizing your moral viewpoint to your children. I can understand the temptation to give ultimatums. But sending the message that mistakes are irrevocable is anti-Christ.

I'll never turn my son out, regardless of the decisions he makes, unless he becomes a threat to the safety and well being of others for whom I have responsibility. So, the trick now is, how do I make it absolutely clear that he always has my love and support without dampening the high expectations of behavior I have for him as well? I dunno. It doesn't even seem that tricky to me at the moment. Why then do people put conditions on their love?

States of Grace

Finally got the movie and watched it tonight. Loved it, of course. In fact, I hope if you haven't seen it yet, you will go buy it immediately and watch it. I'm usually a big patron of libraries, but this is one where I'm not only glad to own it, but I'm almost tempted to send a donation to encourage Dutcher to keep 'em comin'. FYI, I'm not going to dance around the plot, so you can assume all subsequent posts have spoilers. Come back and read/comment once you've seen it.

Apart from the central message resonating so thoroughly with me--we all need God's grace--this movie was all the more powerful because I served a mission in an inner-city in the U.S. as well. The tracting, the investigator falling asleep during the discussion, the distractions... were oh so familiar.

Despite the occasional gun flashing at me when someone answered a door (I'm not kidding), stolen bicycles (oh, and a car), and the odd report of one of my district's companionships having discovered a corpse while walking through an alleyway, I liked the city. People listened. People had been compelled to be humble.

There was drama in the personal lives of various missionaries too. I've never felt at all able to convey the types of vignettes from that part of my life. There were illicit romances, mistakes, midnight transfers, broken rules, various kinds of trouble. The need for grace in the lives of the missionaries as well as the investigators has always been a hard thing to accurately describe without inadvertently giving some wrong impressions as well. This movie, I think, has done an amazing job of summing a lot of it up.

Institutions

I was listening to the radio over the weekend and heard some scholarly pundit talking about reformations and how all major world religions go through them occasionally. As one example he suggested Jesus accomplished such a reformation with his central message that spirituality and peace come from the individual and not through an institution (i.e. the Pharisees). Apparently the Sermon on the Mount was a mere footnote to Jesus' larger aspirations to stick it to the man.

When people talk about the divinity of the LDS church, people align predictably according to their testimonies and interpret any measures of institutional success or failure in that context. The faults of the church are attributed to imperfect men (just as in the Book of Mormon) by faithful church members while opponents attribute problems to systemic flaws. Whether the structure, programs, or institutional practices of the church are divine is debatable even within a faithful paradigm. God, it seems to me, doesn't typically micromanage.

Regardless, the very common idea that no institution has a right to stand between me and my God only makes sense if my God agrees. Many Gods, being the invention of their respective believers, don't have any problem with an ad hoc connection and ad hoc salvation. The Mormon God, however, prefers a more orderly approach to salvation. Authority, ordinances, and structure are just a part of the deal, like it or not.

This all came to my mind with some immediacy recently when I attended the temple. I was thinking about prophets and having a church or other men or anything, really, between me and God. To my surprise, the words of the temple ceremony became surprisingly and pointedly relevant. The dialog reminded me of how much I don't know and how reliant I am on God to teach me in His own way according to His own wisdom. Although I'm a big fan of personal responsibility and a personal relationship with the Savior, I, for one, am grateful for the Lord's institutions and believe reformations should accomplish a balance rather than swinging too far in the opposite direction.

Scapegoating

I noticed in my last post a tendency in myself to use my past to explain away aspects of my life--to attribute cause and perhaps subconsciously also attribute blame. I try to consciously recognize and counteract such scapegoating because I think it's largely unproductive. Sure, the various circumstances of my life have helped to make me who I am, but ultimately I believe the responsibility for who I am lies in what I do with myself today, right now. And then I rightly have nobody to blame but myself for the character of the person I see in the mirror.

When Emma (who has since vanished into self-conscious lurker status) reminded me about the difficulties of mixed orientation marriage (yes, I know everyone hates the term, but it's at least common enough to be succinct and understood), I responded to her like this:

You mentioned depression and addictive behaviors and I'm afraid to say that I know intimately and personally how horrible dealing with such challenges can be (both from my own experience, my wife's, and other close family members... and my patients for that matter). However, my inclination has often been to attribute the problems we face in our marriage and my personal life specifically to my SSA. Now I've got a broader perspective and I think I've used SSA as a scapegoat inappropriately. That's not to say that it isn't a big challenge and that it doesn't influence every part of your married life, because it does. But there are healthy ways we've found to deal with depression and addictive behaviors within our current situation and we have no desire whatsoever for divorce.

I've never been suicidal, but I think the same applies. And I'm not suggesting that a person place blame on himself or herself, I'm suggesting blame isn't usually helpful at all when there are deep personal problems in our lives. If assigning a cause helps to mitigate it, then great. But blame usually just helps us feel victimized and absolved of solving the problem for ourselves. At least, that's the way I feel sometimes. I scapegoat lots of my problems as directly attributable to my struggle with porn, but what good does that do? It doesn't change the challenges I've got and the opportunity I have today to kick those challenges squarely in the butt. I can have better relationships with my friends, see guys around me as people rather than objects, etc. No more scapegoating for -L-.

As an extension of this topic, I've seen the church used as a scapegoat for all the difficulties people experience in the context of homosexuality. Blame is heaped on the church for not solving the full spectrum of people's personal problems--or for causing them. I realize that such blame is important for some to keep their feelings of betrayal fresh and hot, but I think the genuine mistakes made by church leaders or just the inadequacy of an organization to solve all of life's ills doesn't change the virtuous purposefulness and good that the church does accomplish. Attributing suicide to the church for its position on homosexuality is easy, but wrong. Folks who are suicidal because of an inability to deal with their sexuality within the church's context need professional help, not for the church to change its doctrines.

So there you go. It can't all be blamed on your parents, on being gay, on your struggles with porn, or on the church. Whether it's your being gay, your marriage, your personal flaws, or your unhealthy emotions, you can deal with the realities regardless of where they came from. And by "you" I mostly mean "me"!

Naked time

My son likes to be sans clothes and sans diaper. He likes naked time. And really, what toddler doesn't? I've wondered how to respond to his penchant for nudity because I sometimes wonder if my childhood was unnecessarily traumatic secondary to puritanical respect for modesty. I still remember the exact scene where I learned that boys shower together in middle school. I was horrified beyond anything I had yet experienced. This communal showering was not only acceptable but also required?!? I've since wondered whether and how my sexual views during childhood have contributed to my homosexuality and/or difficulty with sexuality during adulthood.

Yes, I realize that there's no data to suggest that you're more likely to be gay if you've been conditioned to think of naked girls as bad and consequently explored sexual curiosity with boys instead. I know it, but I can't help suspecting it anyway. It's just part of my brain's attempt to explain everything in life as causally related to something else.

I don't want to make my son feel the way I felt growing up. It was unnecessarily hard to be hung up over sex regardless. I want my son to feel just the right combination of casual disinterest at being naked around other guys, but enough modesty that he isn't a frank exhibitionist. Turns out, we're not too modest around here, and I wonder if I'll regret that later. Sometimes I think fatherhood is perilous mainly for the misinterpreting, over-reacting, and scapegoating as I try to repair my own past in the way I interact with my son.

Ron Schow, et al.

The Internet has again been conspiring to thwart me in posting. But hopefully, by the time you read this I will have conquered the great cyber-demons and you will be able to view the video below. It's sort of long, but an interesting bio of a gay Mormon. Apparently, several of these video clips are available on LDSresources.info. Prior to this video, all I knew of Schow was that he had responded to the Salt Lake trib article that featured yours truly, and had less than enthusiastic things to say about marriages like mine.

Then, several days ago, the video became the subject of discussion on a list serve I read and my curiosity was piqued. Looking through LDSresources.com, I was delighted to see a review of In Quiet Desperation that took Byrd to task for his, well, obnoxious review. By this, Schow was bumped up a few notches in my estimation. As I read more and more of the site, I saw nothing to support the opinions I had heard that Schow was on the very fringe of LDS faithfulness, claiming adherence and credibility, but actually seeking to contradict the brethren and advance homosexuality as acceptable in the church. What I have seen is a man with unusual compassion and insight into the difficult nature of the issue, as well as a strong advocate for LDS people to follow the prophet's directions to love and accept members of the church who are homosexual as they go forward in faithfulness. And I think we can always use more of those.

Thinking of Jesus

"There are several lessons I've gleaned from my experience coming out of the darkness of a sin that so thoroughly dominates the lives of the people it ensnares: (1) This is a major problem that is unbelievably difficult to overcome.... (2) The most important source of support and strength in the repentance process is the Savior....(3) Intense, daily scripture study, regular temple worship, and serious, contemplative participation in the ordinance of the sacrament are all indispensable parts of a true repentance process. This, I assume, is because all of these activities serve to deepen and strengthen one's relationship with the Savior, one's understanding of His atoning sacrifice, and one's faith in His healing power" (letter dated Oct. 24, 2005).

"I knew it would be difficult," he wrote, "but I didn't realize what I would have to go through." His letter describes the emptiness and loneliness and the incredible pain he experienced from deep within his soul as he sought to return. He prayed mightily for forgiveness, sometimes for hours at a time. He was sustained by reading the scriptures, by the companionship of a loving bishop, and by priesthood blessings. But what finally made the difference was the help of the Savior. He explained:

"It [was] only through Him and His Atonement.... I now feel an overwhelming gratitude. My pains have been almost more than I could bear at times, and yet they were so small compared to what He suffered. Where there once was darkness in my life, there is now love and gratitude."

He continues: "Some profess that change is possible and therapy is the only answer. They are very learned on the subject and have so much to offer those who struggle . . . , but I worry that they forget to involve Heavenly Father in the process. If change is to happen, it will happen according to the will of God. I also worry that many people focus on the causes of [same-gender attraction].... There is no need to determine why I have [this challenge]. I don't know if I was born with it, or if environmental factors contributed to it. The fact of the matter is that I have this struggle in my life and what I do with it from this point forward is what matters" (letter dated Mar. 25, 2006).

-As quoted by Dallin H. Oaks

The first quote is from a man who was struggling with pornography. The second is from a gay man who had been excommunicated and was returning to the church. Involving Heavenly Father and Jesus in dealing with all the struggles in my life should be obvious, but sometimes I have a hard time remembering to do it.

The sacrament, I suppose, would be the appropriate time to think about this. Jesus knows what I face and how I feel more than anyone in the world. He's better able to comfort me and give me help than anywhere else I might turn. Seems like a benefit I'd want to take advantage of.

If anyone needs me in the next little while, you'll find me over here thinking of Jesus.

Fruits

I got an e-mail a while back from a gay guy who’s pretty happy with his life being gay, but had an odd dream in which he saw himself as married to a woman. And having children. And LDS. And extremely happy. He described it like this:

…last June something came over me that I haven't been able to shake -a vision of myself in the future, eternally married as a Mormon with two children. It was the most incredible, wonderful feeling I have ever experienced. In the vision, my world was completely different - nothing was about myself anymore, and instead, everything was about my wife, children, and God. Our children were so beautiful - we would have done anything for them. I was still gay (and we all knew it), but that didn't matter. Just as I had sacrificed certain career aspirations, my time, money, and the planned direction of my life, I had sacrificed being with men. It wasn't something that I questioned because I had evidence of the blessings in front of me at all times.

So, he hooked up with the missionaries and started taking the discussions. I don’t know where he is or isn’t in the process of investigating the church right now, but at one point they were teaching him about the fruits of the spirit and he e-mailed to ask me about the “fruits” of my choices.

I’m pretty stupid about most things, but particularly about my own life and happiness. I have huge mood swings, moments of manic happiness, frenzied stress, bitter frustration… you know, the spectrum of life. Does that make the “fruit” something worth setting out there as an example?

There have also been occasional comments and e-mails from people who, in one way or another, suggest that I’m trying to persuade people to do things like I’ve done it… or to convert them somehow to my way of thinking. I can’t deny trying to be persuasive on some topic when I think I’m right and some other point of view is stupid (notice: no instances offered), but overall I really thought I had made it abundantly clear that this is a journey for me, I don’t pretend to know where it will end or what all the answers are.

I can speak to the happiness I have in my life right now, and it’s genuine. But I can also speak to the difficulties we’ve had (and still have), as well as the many examples of couples that haven’t succeeded in making their marriages a perpetual bliss.

As far as comparing my situation to those who have taken a different path, things get muddy fast. And super subjective. I can only look at the choices people make, and the way I perceive their happiness and the quality of their lives. I don’t necessarily go by whether people say they’re happy, because I’ve seen some pretty nasty, bitter people snarl out how great their life is and that if anyone disputes their happiness they’ll snap their neck like a !@#$ matchstick!!!

It turns out my subjective conclusions don’t really support the “fruit” theory at all. I see the full spectrum ranging all the way from wonderful, exemplary people to cranky jerks both inside the church and out. Of course, the traits that qualify the wonderful, exemplary people as such are qualities consistent with following LDS church teachings, whether they’ve been achieved by trying to follow Christ’s teachings deliberately or not. And vice versa.

I think Galatians isn’t really talking about knowing anything by its fruits (although it’s a great analogy), but specifically the gifts of the spirit. But if I’m making decisions about what to believe and do based on who I want to exemplify and become, I feel pretty good about things anyway.

Idolatry

There is a philosophy of moralism that consists of timeless moral principles. Most of the Judeo-Christian world holds the ancient injunction "Thou shalt not kill" to be a transcendent and absolute principle. To seek timeless principles of value to live by is a noble venture; to be moral is good; to be good is good--but if that is the only end we are seeking, then even goodness and morality can become idolatrous.... When the quest for principles and morals becomes our sole focus--and even our god--we encounter problems when a commandment is given that doesn't seem to have a foundational principle or moral we can immediately understand.... Lacking the understanding that "man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9), individuals may cast aside a commandment in the belief that they can still be "good" without it. For the sake of goodness, they may be able to; but for the sake of Christ, discipleship, and holiness, they cannot. Those who try to find salvation simply in goodness are trying to build a latter-day tower of Babel. They rationalize that if there is a heaven, surely a "good" God wouldn't cast out His "good" children.

Ty Mansfield in
In Quiet Desperation

This was my favorite part of Ty's book. I saved this post up from back when I was reviewing the book, and now seems to be a good time to bust it out. The idea that morality itself could be idolatry (and therefore, somehow immoral) is really interesting. I find I believe it. Same goes for love as idolatry, happiness as idolatry, and all the other good and wonderful things I've seen people use to justify their behavior when it conflicts with God's expectation. Take your favorite virtue and use it to trump God, and voila: idolatry.

Benjamin has been explaining to me here how following prophets can be a form of idolatry, and I'm inclined to agree in some particular instance. When we follow prophets for their own sakes, when we are enamored with the men themselves, when the office is secondary to the person and therefore God is secondary to the person, it's idolatry. On the other hand, justifying not following God's prophet because it doesn't fit with our own personal feelings of what is right for us seems to be a very dangerous place to go. I'm all for personal responsibility in making choices and having integrity, etc., etc., but that doesn't equate with accepting one's own opinions as the last word on what must be right.

There are many aces to be played in the issues of life. They trump the suit, after all. "If men are that they might have joy, then I really have to do what I know makes me the happiest." "If God is love, I just can't believe that God doesn't want me to accept the beautiful love I naturally feel." "God wants me to get away from my self-hate, and now I'm sure he approves of the better place I'm in."

If only there were some way God could clarify the issues when things got confusing... if he had some sort of specific method of communicating with those who are trying to follow him that was less subjectively influenced by the natural man... if only someone on Earth could explain His will and speak with His authority... then I could accept the communication as from God and know that I'm avoiding the idolatry of morality, avoiding trusting the arm of the flesh, avoiding making God in my own image rather than the other way around.

If only.

Terms and Conditions

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things*.

Moroni 10:3-5

*Terms and Conditions

All aspects of this Truth and Knowledge Promotion are defined hereinbelow and are conducted exclusively by God, hereafter "The Source". To the extent that anything contained in this Agreement contradicts or is in any way inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Scriptures shall control in all respects. If you do not agree to the terms of this Agreement in their entirety, you may not receive a Knowledge of the Truth, hereafter "The Product". Please check the words of living prophets periodically for changes, as The Source reserves the right to revise this Agreement at any time.

Upon The Source's acceptance of your request to receive The Product, as indicated by your express consent to this Agreement, The Source hereby grants you a revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable and limited license to The Product to participate in life in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and as permitted via other instructions contained in the Holy Scriptures. You acknowledge and agree that all content and materials made available via The Source are the property of The Source. The Source may terminate this license to The Product at any time for any reason.

In attempting to obtain The Product, you agree to provide a sincere heart, real intent, and have faith in Christ. That is, to receive the Product you must be willing to accept The Product and all the implications included therein. Such implications may engender temporary confusion, disappointment, and regret, but such consequences shall be mitigated through faith and subsequently further engaging The Product.

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, any future offer(s) made available to you by The Source that augment(s) or otherwise enhance(s) the current features of The Product shall be subject to this Agreement. You understand and agree that The Source is not responsible or liable in any manner whatsoever for your inability to use or participate in this program, qualify for any knowledge of the truth, or for your inability to utilize any associated functionality. Inability to use The Product may arise from mistaking subjective personal experiences as part of The Product itself, acting in flagrant violation of the principles inherent in The Product, and other poor choices. However, The Source generously concedes a liberal tolerance for personal effort to enhance the product and for mistakes committed thereby, as long as users of The Product remember that The Product is clarified and becomes more usable by degrees (line upon line, so to speak) with patience and obedience. You understand and agree that The Source shall not be liable to you or any third party for any modification, suspension or discontinuation of The Product based on your own poor choices. You understand and agree that refusal to use the The Product is your sole right and remedy with respect to any dispute with The Source.

Should a dispute arise concerning the terms and conditions of this Agreement or the breach of same by either party hereto, the parties agree to submit their dispute for resolution by arbitration before the Lord Jesus Christ on the final judgment day.

Spouses

Emma sent me a message recently asking where all the blogs were of spouses of LDS gay folks. I didn't know of any but sent her to the disciples2 page and Emily Pearson's Wildflowers site. It seems like people have mentioned others, but I can't remember them. Anyone else remember? Emma decided to go ahead and start her own blog at emma-emmawrites.blogspot.com and I've enjoyed reading her posts as well as her comments around the blogs.

I just wanted to say welcome, Emma, as you look for insight and support.

Healing power of Christ

At times we may despair that our burdens are too great. When it seems that a tempest is raging in our lives, we may feel abandoned and cry out like the disciples in the storm, "Master, carest thou not that we perish?" (Mark 4:38). At such times we should remember His reply: "Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?" (v. 40).

The healing power of the Lord Jesus Christ—whether it removes our burdens or strengthens us to endure and live with them like the Apostle Paul—is available for every affliction in mortality.

-Elder Dallin H. Oaks

Something really great has been happening to me. Not to be dramatic, but I think my New Years' Resolutions have really helped me be happier. It's either that, or all the vitamin supplements I'm taking in conjunction with my 2007 fitness plan.

Not long ago I felt like I was in the depths of inaction. No matter how much I thought about change or wrote about change or wanted change, I just couldn't get myself to think or believe or behave any differently than I had for years. I didn't know what I was going to do. I prayed with no immediate answer. I just kept going. I've been thinking and hoping and gearing up to get my act together for months.

And now, somehow, I think it's working. I feel better. I'm cleaner, healthier, and more motivated to do the things in my life that I know will be good for me.

I really enjoyed listening to Elder Oaks' talk again while I was jogging along today. It reminded me of all the reasons I still hope and believe and worship Jesus Christ. He's really our advocate and loves us more than we can imagine. There's something magical about the atonement--otherworldly. And yet here it is influencing my actual life in a wonderful way. I'm grateful for that healing and I pray I can have the faith and faithfulness to continue to heal in Christ.

Living the days

Adaon smiled gravely. "Is there not glory enough in living the days given to us? You should know there is adventure in simply being among those we love and the things we love, and beauty, too."

I've been excited to find the adventure and "glory" waiting for me so far in 2007. I find I like my life to a surprising degree, all things considered. I've had a few rough patches lately, but nothing unusual or particularly alarming. And in the midst of it all I find myself more in love with my wife than ever, more connected to my son than ever, and more content with "living the days given" to me.

Sometimes I wonder if it's a symptom of having left my 20's behind that I no longer find a huge amount of draw in big ambitious dreams. Less and less do I feel like I have to compete or out-do anyone else, and it's kind of a relief. I have a little family and we are the most important thing in one another's lives. Having said that, we each have personal interests that we pursue with alacrity and passion, and I'm not really in favor of giving that up.

So, yeah, Adaon. Good point.

On your honor

"It is Ellidyr who paid the final price," Taran said slowly. "The last honor belongs to him." He spoke then of Islimach [his suicidal horse]. "He has lost all else, even his steed."

"Or perhaps gained all," Gwydion answered. "And his honor shall be certain. We shall raise a barrow to his memory. Islimach, too, shall rest with him, for they are both now at peace. Smoit's dead shall also sleep in honor, and a barrow be raised above Morgant King of Madoc."

"Morgant?" Taran asked, turning a puzzled glance to Gwydion. "How can there be honor for such a man?"

"It is easy to judge evil unmixed," replied Gwydion. "But, alas, in most of us good and bad are closely woven as the threads on a loom; greater wisdom than mine is needed for the judging."

I've been encouraged to be honorable as a boy scout (the scout oath), in school (the honor roll), and as a missionary ("return with honor"). I've never been a huge fan of conceptual honor, exactly, as it makes me think we're talking about reputation. But I suppose the self-perception and moral identity aspects of honor are good ones to support.

So, The Black Cauldron is all about honor. But my initial reaction was a less-than-enthusiastic one since the way they talk about honor reminds me of my brushes with renaissance fairs. Through a series of events I won't describe, I found myself dishonorably clothed in jeans and t-shirt in the midst of dozens of back-clapping, cod-piece wearing fellas who seemed to stare at me as if I were a freak. The blemish on my family's escutcheon will be difficult to buff.

What I loved about it after reading it, though, was the contrast between the honor Ellidyr wanted (which was based on others' perceptions and was a complete sham and he would have known it) vs. the honor an assistant pig keeper can hold in his own heart regardless of having little status in the world. While the message seems to be that the honor does not derive from who we are, but from how we behave, I extend that in my mind to be an endorsement of the idea of seeking God's honor or some sort of self satisfaction rather than "aspiring to the honors of men."

This is also an appropriate time to think about this topic because recently I felt very humiliated in a public forum. I felt misunderstood and frankly victimized by angry folks who have obviously been deeply hurt themselves and lost a lot of perspective. Looking back, I recognize that group dynamics sometimes dictate harsh perceptions of certain points of view, but that harshness and the dishonor heaped on you by the mob are ridiculous. It's good practice to worry not what others think, just what God thinks or what I think of myself.

Honor means having a good work ethic, paying for what I receive, respecting others, being honest, etc., and I suppose this all equates to being a disciple of Christ for me. And even though I'm more of a Morgant some days than a Taran, I'm happy to keep trying to make the closely woven threads of good and bad in my loom lean toward the good.

The Black Cauldron

Well, I was going to post today for Black Cauldron, but then I went and lost my copy. It was a fun book, and I enjoyed it for what it was--that much I can remember. The moral was that if you are a scummy person with a lot of self-hate you can simultaneously win some honor and commit suicide if you play your cards right. That, and that there is a little pig-boy in us all.

So, I'll be posting when I get around to it. Now, back to eating Christmas candy. Yum.

Oh, yeah, and if you would like to start suggesting books for January, feel free. Backslider and Rough Stone Rolling (bio of Joseph Smith) are on the list already. Others?

Wicked

Something has changed within me
Something is not the same
I'm through with playing by the rules
Of someone else's game
Too late for second-guessing
Too late to go back to sleep
It's time to trust my instincts
Close my eyes: and leap!

It's time to try
Defying gravity
I think I'll try
Defying gravity
And you can't pull me down!

I'm through accepting limits
'Cuz someone says they're so
Some things I cannot change
But till I try, I'll never know!
Too long I've been afraid of
Losing love I guess I've lost
Well, if that's love
It comes at much too high a cost!
I'd sooner buy
Defying gravity
Kiss me goodbye
I'm defying gravity
And you can't pull me down:

So if you care to find me
Look to the western sky!
As someone told me lately:
"Ev'ryone deserves the chance to fly!"
And if I'm flying solo
At least I'm flying free
To those who'd ground me
Take a message back from me
Tell them how I am
Defying gravity
I'm flying high
Defying gravity
And soon I'll match them in renown
And nobody in all of Oz
No Wizard that there is or was
Is ever gonna bring me down!

Like a horoscope I often listen to music and hear exactly the message I want to, regardless of what the words actually say or the context. So, I like these lyrics. And, I'm through accepting limits because someone says they're so. Some things I cannot change, but till I try, I'll never know!

Civil unions

One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.

-Elder Wickman

I would sometimes like to avoid the subject of gay marriage altogether because it gives me a lot of mental pain. But I don't have that option as it is an important issue right now for so many people (both gay and LDS), and it is playing out in elections and public debates all the time. The recent election and the variations in legislative and constitutional proposals across the country brought it all to the forefront for me again.

My inclination is to favor gay marriage and/or civil unions, but to also follow the advice of the church even when it doesn't necessarily make sense to me. But I don't think it's inappropriate to discuss guidance given by the church, and I think it's actually a spiritual necessity to try to understand it. So, wearily, here goes... (again)...

Elder Wickman mentions that "our doctrine simply requires" us to oppose not only gay marriages but civil unions that accomplish an identical purpose. I don't know what doctrine this specifically is. Gay sex is wrong: check. Chastity is good: check. Freedom to choose: check. The balance of doctrine seems to lean toward allowing civil unions, in my mind. I really would appreciate a clarification, but through some unfortunate oversight I wasn't invited to the Public Affairs interview I've quoted.

Adoption is the other sticking point for me. As many have pointed out before, despite the ideal that every child deserves a home with a father and mother, that hasn't happened for many children and allowing an actual care-giver in a real life situation to properly care for a child seems to be a good idea. When a child comes to the Emergency Department with a gay care-giver who is not related, treatment consent cannot be obtained until the legal parent is available (with a few caveats). This can delay treatment and adversely affect the child's health.

I suppose the objection is that recognizing or supporting gay adoption would have the effect of sky-rocketing the number of children being reared by gay partners rather than fathers and mothers--like we're advocating the better of two unfortunate options. Advocate policy that harms a small number of children today to harm fewer children later... or something like that. But, I can certainly understand the incredulity gay advocates confront this with--the data shows no harm to children from being raised with same-gendered parents.

And I suppose that brings us full circle to the appeal to "doctrine." It may not be doctrine because it's in the scriptures, but by virtue of the fact the 1st presidency says it's the best thing to do. It's an appeal to God's authority, and that's the end of the debate.

So much rides on the question: is the church really God's? Are the prophets really speaking for Him? I wish everyone could respect those who answer those questions differently than themselves without throwing around insults and intolerance. But it has been recently and emphatically demonstrated to me that for both believers and non-believers this is prohibitively difficult.

Boring post

I'm going to start my New Year's Resolutions early. Like, today. Then I'll get all my false starts out of the way before the real thing.

And this is important enough, I suppose to warrant a blog post. Too bad the important things in life--trying harder and basic obedience--are the most boring.

Here's my tentative list:

• Read scriptures daily
• Exercise 6 times a week
• Manage to not be sarcastic and nasty, even when it's really really tempting.
• Be more tidy

Step 3: Trust in God

Decide to turn your will and your life over to the care of God the Eternal Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Step 3 is the decision step. In the first two steps, we awakened to what we could not do for ourselves and what we needed God to do for us. Then in step 3 we were introduced to the only thing we could do for God. We could make a decision to open ourselves to Him and surrender our entire lives—past, present, and future—and our will about our lives to Him. Step 3 was an act of agency. It was the most important choice we ever made.

-Addiction Recovery Manual

I do love the Maxwell quote where he declares that the only thing we really have to give God is our will since everything else came from God to begin with. I've been pretty stingy with my will lately, it seems. I remember specifically making my will secondary to God's will when it came to the big things--marriage and career--but I keep trying to just push all the other details of my life to be what I want them to, rather than what God might have in mind for me.

I've been pursuing my own will for so long, it's hard to imagine my life any other way. The manual mentions not getting worked up over traffic jams and not fearing creditors as examples of how your life may change when you give control over to God. That sounds placid and delightful, but I can't imagine myself not getting upset over traffic. Traffic just makes me livid and that's all there is to it. The only way I really enjoy driving is when everyone else in the world stays off the roads (the fools! the bad drivers!).

So, this idea is kind of novelty to me even though it's not new. I'm trying to figure it out so I can apply it to help me overcome the porn addiction. The manual says, "You can accept with serenity the current reality of your condition when you trust in God’s ability to help you." I do accept the reality of my condition with comparative serenity. And I trust in God's ability to help me. But, if no change happens, does that put it on God's shoulders? I mean, if I've acknowledged that I'm incapable of doing this on my own, and now I'm trusting in God and giving him my will... who is to blame for when I screw up again? Isn't sacrificing one's will in this case just code for solving your problem the way God wants it to be solved?

The new look

What do I have to do to get someone to say, "Groovy new look, L!"?

So, I've made a few changes and I'm not fully persuaded that I like all of them. Do you like the expandable comments on the homepage? I'm not sold. I'm thinking about taking them off. Feedback? Anything else better or worse?

Underwear enacting evil

Jessie mentioned that the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet has changed its wording to de-emphasize ratings in favor of making informed entertainment decisions. But that leaves me with the whole burden of evaluating my entertainment for myself—exercising my free agency muscles, as santorio puts it. I love the idea, but in practice this has been very problematic. I’m afraid of indulging the oblivious inconsistency I’ve seen in others.

I’ve heard one way to evaluate questionable content is to determine whether it is portraying evil (i.e. accurately describing the consequences that come from violence, revenge, moral depravity, etc.) or actually enacting the evil itself. Media supposedly enacts evil when it makes it appear glamorous or in any way divorces it from the harsh realities that surround it. Not showing the consequences is evil in itself, the idea goes.

This sounds very wise until I actually calculate out how it might apply. So, now I can watch explicit extramarital sex as long as there’s eventually a horribly awkward confrontation with the spouse? I get aroused by underwear ads, so it seems to me that I should avoid the bothersome ones even though the men standing there in their near-nothins are being very candid and honest about the consequences of wearing underwear.

Plus, I’m horrible at putting down a book or leaving a movie if it suddenly seems out of line. I’m a sucker for finishing what I start (how does it end? I MUST KNOW!).

Rrrrratings

I’ve never been one for R-rated movies. In fact, by the time I finished college, I don’t think I had ever seen a full R-rated film knowing that it was R-rated. Truthfully, there were a couple where although I didn’t know the rating for certain, I didn’t walk out even when things went sour, so I can’t pretend to be such a perfect little boy. (I’m resisting the urge to be glib about my concurrent refusal to watch R films but willingness to watch porn privately). But still—I steered clearer than most.

Apart from the prophetic prohibition of R films, I found it easier to just leave the responsibility for choosing what is acceptable to the faceless motion picture ratings group. But now I’m persuaded that that’s sort of a cop out. Putting aside the controversy over the inconsistency and arbitrary nature of the rating system in this country, it seems that for a thinking adult, ratings are inadequate. I’ve seen a fair amount of nudity in non-R-rated films (and that’s where I personally run into the most trouble). My inclination is to believe that NC-17 movies are downright bad. However, no children under 17 are admitted to the temple movie, so what’s the rating on that?

I’ve now watched a few R films, generally chosen for having an uplifting message and having a rating that is meant to protect children from being unnecessarily troubled rather than for being indecent. But I’m ambivalent because of the prophetic advice not to watch R-rated films—especially given the arbitrary and evolving nature of the ratings system in the U.S. It’s a conflict about the spirit vs. the letter of the law we’ve all been through before, and I was always taught the spirit of the law extends the letter rather than contradicts it. And as one who feels an urgency to hold on to all the spiritual strength I can, it should be a no-brainer. Now, if only there were a rating system for books… Censorship!!!

Turkish delight

She knew, though Edmund did not, that this was enchanted Turkish Delight and that anyone who tasted it would want more and more of it, and would even, if they were allowed, go on eating it till they killed themselves...

C.S.Lewis in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

I've been thinking about visceral desires. They make perfect sense a lot of the time, but then you have desires gone awry, like pica where a pregnant woman has an irrational desire to eat dirt. I'm not kidding. Dirt in this case may even be good for her since the desire is based on a mineral deficiency. More likely though, the dirt is just going to get stuck in her teeth.

Near as I can tell, the process by which your body associates a certain behavior or food with meeting a particular need is an imperfect one. Pickles and ice cream good for babies? How does that work? It actually does sometimes. Of course, sometimes it doesn't.

When a properly diagnosed vitamin deficiency is treated appropriately, the cravings are then irrelevant--it doesn't matter whether the desired object is weird or not in terms of health, the needs are being met. But there's still that craving. And that's kind of where I see my current status with another flavor of Turkish Delight. My reproductive needs have been met despite a misdirected craving that seems never to relent. Porn, then, seems to stop the craving itself for a while, but then I want more and more of it. And that Turkish Delight is threatening to kill me. Too bad I agreed to have some from the White Witch in the first place.

I'll have to keep trying to remember how Edmund's problem was solved.

Concession

August 21, 2006 - At the APA Conference in New Orleans — where APA President Koocher commented about the ethicality of sexual reorientation therapy — Clinton Anderson, director of the APA Office of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns, offered further commentary.*

Mr. Anderson said he does not dispute that some people leave homosexuality. "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change, because we know that straight people become gay and lesbian — so it seems totally reasonable that some gay and lesbian people would become straight. The issue is not whether sexual orientation changes...the issue is whether therapy changes sexual orientation."

NARTH

That shifting moment when everyone suddenly agreed that change is possible somehow escaped me. Was someone else there? Can you describe it for me? Regardless, I hope the legions of folks who constantly reference the APA as a scientifically credible organization which has debunked reparative therapy will now fall in line with this statement that nobody "disagrees with the idea that people can change" sexual orientation! Hee.

Full disclosure

I recently discussed with my wife that moment when I came out to her. I remember it as awkward, very embarrassing, and still sort of heroically wonderful. It was the first time I ever admitted I was gay to anyone other than a therapist.

But, I have a terrible memory, and for this reason I generally charge my wife with keeping track of life's most important reminders. And my wife's recollection of the event is a little different from my own. She remembers me saying, "I think I might like boys... sometimes." The careful reader will note that this is not identical in declarative solidity or content to "I am gay."

Over the last several months I've read with interest the accounts of other gay married men who either came out to their wives before or after marriage, as well as Oaks' comments on the subject and others' takes who are only spectators to the situation. The general sentiment seems to be, shame on you if you didn't tell your wife exactly what she was getting into before you married her. And, in some few cases, this may apply. But I really feel that the majority of cases (mine included) suffer from a lack of full disclosure not because of some sneaky reluctance to be honest, but because there has been such a lack of self-understanding that one could just as easily say, "Based on my feelings, I'm not sure if my gallbladder is performing at 100%."

I still don't fully understand the nature and depth of my homosexuality. But neither of us quite knew at the time we were dating and engaged that it would be as hard as it has been. I didn't think pornography was going to be the long-term problem that it has been, and she interpreted my "coming out" as a turning point--believing that having finally admitted it I was in a position to just walk away from it.

Back when the SLT article came out about gay married Mormons, many an idle commenter declared us to be naïve in believing our marriage could work. I believe we were naïve in the same way everyone is naïve when starting something as strange and new as marriage--there's no way you can know the odd ins and outs without experiencing them firsthand. And we were ignorant to the depth and breadth of the challenges my homosexuality would create for us. But we were not naive in the largest sense--we knew marriage would send us all sorts of curve balls, and that we would need all our loyalty and commitment to one another and the gospel to make it through regardless of the nature of the challenges.

We still believe (and I don't think it's naïve at all) that our marriage is and will be what we make it. Our marriage has improved and strengthened consistently over the years despite our growing understanding of the sexual challenges. It's not an overstatement to say that our family is thriving. Although my initial admission to my wife was something short of full disclosure, it represented an honest effort to communicate what I knew and understood at the time, and so the real measure of the success of our communication is not in whether I told, but in whether I continue to tell.

Cogito? Really?

In his Principles of Philosophy, Descartes argues that he was attracted to cross-eyed women because, as a child, he loved a cross-eyed playmate. He says that as soon as he realized the origin of his fetish, he was freed from it and could, once again, love women with normally spaced eye-balls. This insight, says the Britannica, "was the basis for Descartes's defense of free will and of the mind's ability to control the body."... I like that Descartes has such faith in the power of the mind that he places such high value on self-knowledge. There's Cogito ergo sum, and apparently there's also "Cogito about my kinky side, ergo sum free from it." He was doing Freudian therapy on himself 250 years before Freud bought his first couch.

A.J. Jacobs in The Know-It-All

Hmmm... I don't know that I have much more to say about that. But it made me chuckle. Descartes was one of my favorite philosophers... until I had to read more than a few pages.

Book club, December 2

Ok, the chat thing wasn't exactly a huge success. Which means, no book club title has been selected. I've heard suggestions for The Black Cauldron, an Ayn Rand title, and The Charioteer by Mary Renault. I'm more excited about either a non-fiction title (maybe Pres. Hinckley's bio) or a non-gay fiction title. I'm a little gayed out as far as books go for the present. But, hey, I just work here. Santorio suggested taking the month off, and that's fine with me too. Whatever you guys want...

Suggest titles and I'll put up a poll soon.

It's genetic

Today I uncovered irrefutable evidence that SSA is genetic. It turns out that Another Other and I are, in fact, fourth cousins once removed. Our common ancestor was a prominent polygamist and the author of High on the Mountain Top. On further reflection, this should hardly be surprising in light of the following:

1. We are both brilliant
2. We are both married gay Mormons
3. We are both undeniably attractive people

You can see how this ought to put to rest forever contentions over whether or not genetics plays a large role in sexual orientation.

Indulging one's worst

But Joe was perhaps the first to feel the shame of glorifying, in the name of democracy and freedom, the vengeful brutality of a very strong man. For months he had been assuring himself, and listening to Sammy's assurances, that they were hastening, by their make-believe hammering at Haxoff or Hynkel or Hassler or Hitler, the intervention of the United States into the war in Europe. Now it occurred to Joe to wonder if all they had been doing, all along, was indulging their own worst impulses and assuring the creation of another generation of men who revered only strength and domination.

I wonder how often I indulge something despicable in myself in the name of virtue. I see examples all the time where someone starts off pursuing a good ideal and ends up strangely defying themselves. You've got your political leaders who are so absolutely certain of their moral position that they brazenly invade in the name of freedom, all while their opponents claim martyrdom over the "invasion of the infidels." It's all about perspective, I guess. And that's why I try to take in things from all perspectives. That's not a bad idea on the face of it. But, it can be quite crippling at times.

I've never developed a finely tuned barometer for appropriate indignation. I tend to come off soft in the hardest of circumstances. I suppose it's because I've been drilled to turn the other cheek throughout my life. Is that adequate when I'm being tromped on unprovoked? Is it adequate when my family is? Clearly not.

So, how and when do you draw the line? If you've been reading this blog for a few months, you'll remember my sudden embarrassment at having become crass and sarcastic. It seemed an inappropriate way to respond to the crass sarcasm of those who ridicule me. But since then, I've been overly soft at times too. Imagine, for example, a brazen pedophile who attacks a vulnerable person repeatedly--how do you respond to such a person? I found myself loathe to say anything insulting. I didn't want to label him or judge him or say anything bitter. That left just reasoning with an unreasonable fiend. And is that adequate when someone you love is being harassed? I went for using strong words... words which I'm still not certain were quite the right flavor. Words like evil and despise.

The point is, Joe and I aren't the only ones who have a hard time weighing things out. But I'd like to become aware of the issue to the point I can be as certain as possible that I haven't crossed a line in the opposite direction.

Book club, December

I know several folks read Amazing Adventures, and I've even had private chats with a few people about the themes of the book. But the comments have been sparse, so I wonder if it's worth trying something different.

Come to this blog and click this link to open a chat window at 5:00 pm MST on Sunday Dec 3, to join in a lively discussion on AAKC. In this chat we'll decide the book club title for December. If you can't make it to the chat, please comment your preference for a December title here.

Feeling super

A surprising fact about the magician Bernard Kornblum, Joe remembered, was that he believed in magic. Not in the so-called magic of candles, pentagrams, and bat wings. Not in the kitchen enchantments of Slavic grandmothers with their herbiaries and parings from the little toe of a blind virgin tied up in a goatskin bag. Not in astrology, theosophy, chiromancy, dowsing rods, seances, weeping statues, werewolves, wonders, or miracles. All these Kornblum had regarded as fakery far different--far more destructive--than the brand of illusion he practiced, whose success, after all, increased in direct proportion to his audiences' constant, keen awareness that, in spite of all the vigilance they could bring to bear, they were being deceived. What bewitched Bernard Kornblum on the contrary, was the impersonal magic of life, when he read in a magazine about a fish that could disguise itself as any one of seven different varieties of sea bottom, or when he learned from a newsreel that scientists had discovered a dying star that emitted radiation on a wavelength whose value in megacycles approximated pi. In the realm of human affairs, this type of enchantment was often, though not always, a sadder business--sometimes beautiful, sometimes cruel. Here its stock-in-trade was ironies, coincidences, and the only true portents: those that revealed themselves, unmistakable and impossible to ignore, in retrospect.

You can't be a physician and not believe in Kornblum's type of magic. The human body is amazing stuff--no short of real magic. Further, human relationships are remarkable. And human stupidity is unfathomable (to put a little more cynical spin on it!).

In a parallel way, I believe in super heroes. Not in the web crawling mutations of a teen photographer, not in the x-ray vision of an alien orphan, but in the very personal super heroes of life--the poem writers for the upset, the activists for the oppressed, the courageous folks who walk away from mistakes, the ready friend to the struggling, the unwavering voice of faith, the (I could go on, but I'm too lazy--insert something here that describes you)... these folks are heroes of mine and accomplish in a slow and quiet way the super-human task of human life. They do what everyone does, but do it exceptionally.

I aspire to be super. But being super in life, much like Kornblum's magic, has many imitators and often remains unrecognized. Perhaps someday I can be as super as I want to be.